Skip to main content

View Diary: It's Now or Never: Run Against Corporate America's GOP (154 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  corporate GOP (14+ / 0-)

    Show me evidence that the Dems are less of corporate ass-kissers than the GOP.

    There are differences between the two parties, and they are important. But the attitute toward corporate power is not one of those differences.

    •  bull (15+ / 0-)

      The culture of the Democratic party is changing--just look at Howard Dean and the Democracy Bonds.

      It's true that too many in the Democratic Party are tied to corporate cash.

      But make no mistake about who receives the vast lion's share of corporate money.  It ain't the Dems.

      There's a huge difference between the two parties on this one, though it should be bigger.

      Ever wish there were One Big Wiki-Style Clearinghouse for all the GOP Scandals? Well now there is.

      by thereisnospoon on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 05:01:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, it's not bull. Dem's are often in the pocket (18+ / 0-)

        of the multi-nationals as well. Any number of measures passed by Congress can be cited, and since it's hurricane season, I'll start with the Federal program that guarantees insurance for coastal development, i.e. where the private industry fears to tread, the Fed is willing to go. This program is largely responsible for the development we have seen in the last 20 years, which would not have happened otherwise.

        Did our coastline benefit from it? Who will be picking up the cost of sstorm damage?

        Or take the S&L bailout, now up to $200 billion dollars.

        It goes on. Are the Dem's as bad as the GOP? No, but to paint them as White Knights is not correct.

        17. Ne5

        In chess you may hit a man when he's down -- Irving Chernev, on Przepiorka v. Prokes, Budapest, 1929

        by Spud1 on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 05:28:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Alas, Differences Only Affect Speed of Same Trend (7+ / 0-)

        With Republicans we board a jet to the aristocratic century. With Democrats we get a train that takes us to the same place, but we can bring along our doctors.

        When everyone using a system gets the same bad results, it means the system design itself is fundamentally wrong.

        That's what Roosevelt demonstrated by rescuing the country from depression and possible revolution through pasting an entirely novel extra theory of government on top of it with the New Deal.

        The success of that scheme is why the Republicans are stripping it away back to the subsistence farmers' system the framers built. The framers warned us that we needed to keep evolving their system with the times. We failed to do that in the mid 20th century when we took the attitude that we could simply 'interpret' absolutely bedrock-crucial developments into it without ammending or revising.

        The fact is that in the information age we cannot run a meaningfully democratic society without:

        • Steeply progressive taxes limiting accumulation individual wealth and corporate market share far more than they are now
        • Establishment of an effective democratic commons in the virtual gathering spaces of the information age--something for which we lack even a working concept so far
        • Aggressive social safety net--look to the civilized world for ideas
        • Aggressive government oversight and balancing of all sorts of corporate activity such as environment, research, truth in advertising etc.

        In any one of these ideas the level of aggression required in the information age is radically beyond what any practical politicians are talking about.

        I have to conclude that the only people who consistently demonstrate a realistic understanding of our times are the radical corporatists. To call the left a party of reality, except in our support for science, is a sad joke according to the track record I see.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 07:12:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Democracy Bonds? (0+ / 0-)

        All the democracy bond program is is another name for the monthly giving program the DNC has been doing for years, it isn't a revolution in fundraising to get people to give monthly.

        Now, what I did like hearing was that Howard has spent less time kissing corpo butt and doing more party building in the states.  But we do have a serious problem with the DSCC and DCCC, both Chuck and Rham are taking corpo money hand over fist and that is a huge problem if you ask me.

        absolute freedom for one individual undoubtedly limits the freedom of another.

        by jbou on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 01:07:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Like it or not... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wystler, Mae

      ... we need corporate America. It will do no good for Dems to shun them completely, however, they do need to not kowtow to their every whim. Oversight, whether it be directed toward the President, or making sure corporate America doesn't sell us down the river is what is needed, as opposed to a corporate lynching.

      You are right, though, there are still too many democrats (Biden!) who let corporate America ride rough shod over us. There is progress (Lamont!) being make, though.

      Remember the goal. Gain back a majority in both houses this election, then clean house on the next.

      hink

      •  "corporate lynching?" (11+ / 0-)

        This phrase to me sums up the problem.

        The diarist had the temerity to say that the corporate conrolled Republican Party and the corporations they shill for are a big part of the problem.  He did not analyze the problem itself.  He did not propose socializing the economy.  He made no proposals at all.  He merely directed our attention to who's calling the shots and lining their pockets.  Period.  

        You respond by comparing corporations to oppressed black people who were terrorized by fascist vigilantes for 75 years.

        When I was a child in DC in the early 60s, the elder males in my upper middle class Republican family would occasionally scare me with confidential ruminations about how blacks wanted to be white, how the ignorant poor and the blacks would ruin the country if they got "control" of it, how some of them (not all) were out to get us and were just using the rest.  The specter of the Mob. And how this is true in all civilizations going back to Rome and Greece.

        Their paranoid visions were used to justify pre-emptive cruelty and oppression.  No different from today's White House.  Up-is-downism.  

        The indisputible truth is the powerless get lynched in Merka and always have. Not the powerful. The corporations are vastly more powerful today than they were 30 years ago or 60 years ago.  

        Tarring those who try to shed light on this dynamic with the brush of "lynching" is worse than historically inaccurate.  Here is how Paolo Freire, Brazilian pedagogue and activist put it:

        "Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral."

        •  Wha? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          viscerality

          You respond by comparing corporations to oppressed black people who were terrorized by fascist vigilantes for 75 years.

          I most certainly did not.

          lynch vt
          to seize somebody believed to have committed a crime and put him or her to death immediately and without trial, usually by hanging

          Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

          My engagement in hyperbole is my only crime.

          hink

          •  Where I come from (0+ / 0-)

            lynching refers to black folks and only black folks.  Can you give me some examples of white folks who have been lynched?  Rich folks?  I doubt that you can.  Because lynching never happens to the powerful.  The powerful get Due Process.

            Context is everything.  Clarence Thomas compared the scrutiny he underwent following Anita Hill's testimony to "lynching."  And it was offensive for the same reason.   Not because it was hyperbole, but because he perversely and arrogantly claimed the role of victim when he was in fact the person with power.

      •  Constitutional Crisis? (0+ / 0-)

        To my eyes it's appearing that with information technology the economy has outgrown the people, and with that, the framers' theories of government.

        In any area I look, gains for the people seem to require immediate tangible losses for corporate ownership, whether it's education, health care, awareness of current events, incomes, environmental protection, worker safety, all the social safety net from cradle to grave --you name it.

        The best we can say to corporate America is that if the people are given a little better deal, the country might be more pleasant to live in.

        But since corporate America can now automate or hire every needed bit of human input discretely, it no longer needs to bear the inevitable regulatory cost of a healthy, aware middle class. Education? It can hire design and innovation from offshore. Wages? There are now 3 billion competitors for every job.

        And so on.

        The economy and the people are almost totally adversarial, stuck in a system of government conceived for an economy that was largely owned and run by masses of people. I don't see how a party can represent both the people and much of the economy at the same time, other than by agreeing with ownership that ownership must become aristocratic while the masses' living standards must plunge, but perhaps managing it more humanely than the other party.

        I wish I had a quick fix in mind.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 07:23:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't believe this at all, G'rock (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GayHillbilly, ohiolibrarian, MO Blue

          You make it sound as though there were some natural, evolutionary progression from an economy that supports ordinary working people, towards an economy that is so corporate-riven and corporate-driven that ordinary working people get screwed.  There is no such natural progression.  The ascendency of corporate power, influence, and wealth has been initiated by -- and buttressed by -- a series of deliberate government policies, many (most?) of which are Republican in origin.

          The grant of corporate status as 'persons' -- and then expanding rights to corporations as though they were human persons, are not the product of natural evolution -- they are policy choices.

          The grant of monopolies, and the grant of rights conferred by patents, are not the product of natural evolution -- they are policy choices.  

          Limitations on the rights of laborers and depredations of the power of trades unions are not evolutionary -- they are policy choices.

          Failing to protect ordinary workers from less-than-living wages is not evolutionary -- it's a policy choice.

          Permitting American multinationals to pay wages and benefits overseas at rates far lower than are paid domestically, is not evolutionary -- it's a policy choice.

          Protecting corporations from products liability is not evolutionary -- it's a policy choice.

          Protecting corporations from liability for discrimination based on age, gender, race, sexual preference, and the like, is not evolutionary -- it's a policy choice.

          Equating expenditures of campaign or lobbying money, with the free speech rights of natural persons, is not evolutionary -- it's a policy choice.

          I don't believe for one minute that corporate power can no longer be reigned in, or that corporations have to exist at the expense of ordinary working people.  Corporations come into existence by grant of the state; they can be regulated by the state.  Failure to do so is a policy decision.

    •  Family Medical Leave Act (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kidneystones

      "We need to ask America to adopt a new kind of patriotism, a patriotism about something more than just war." -- John Edwards

      by philgoblue on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 06:48:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  We're Having Our Own (4+ / 0-)

      On-going running battle in party with our DLC wing and the regular Democrats who have always kept the business pimps at arms lenght.

      Just look at our party now, at the people in power, and you can pretty much see how much influence the corporate types have.  Look at our early 08 Presidential line-up.  Of the group, only Edwards and Feingold are not First Team DLC-Pro Business Pimpers.

      Our party has always had its ties with business.  The main difference has been that we go home at night to the people, the unions, etc.  The DLC people sleep with the business pimps.

      Someone should compile a list here of the major Corp Ass-Kissers (Pro Business Pimps).  I know the unions have their lists.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site